MADISON, Wis. – In a new op-ed published today in the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, former U.S. Senator Russ Feingold and Law Forward attorneys Jeff Mandell and Rachel Snyder argue that the U.S. Supreme Court should reject attempts to further erode campaign finance laws as the Court hears arguments in NRSC v. FEC today.
Law Forward previously filed an amicus brief in the case on behalf of former U.S. Senator Russ Feingold. The brief uses Wisconsin as a case study, detailing how the state’s elimination of contribution limits to political parties and coordinated spending restrictions since 2015 has led to a flood of money that effectively renders candidate contribution limits meaningless. Recent Wisconsin gubernatorial and Supreme Court elections have shattered fundraising records, with tens of millions of dollars transferred from state parties to candidate committees.
“Wisconsin’s experience shows exactly what happens when these guardrails fall. Contribution limits become symbolic, easily circumvented through political parties. Extraordinarily wealthy individuals exercise vastly disproportionate influence. The appearance — and reality — of corruption follows,” Feingold and Law Forward write in the op-ed. “The court should learn from Wisconsin’s cautionary tale and preserve these protections. Otherwise, Wisconsin’s nightmare becomes America’s reality: elections for sale to the highest bidder, and citizens’ voices drowned out by billionaires’ checkbooks.”
Milwaukee Journal Sentinel: Opinion | WI’s campaign finance nightmare is about to go national
[Russ Feingold, Jeff Mandell and Rachel Snyder; 12/9/25]
- The U.S. Supreme Court on Dec. 9 will hear a case that could fundamentally reshape American elections by dismantling one of the last significant limits on campaign spending. If the court strikes down these limits, we don’t have to speculate about what will happen — we’ve already seen the damage in Wisconsin.
- This challenge started during now-Vice President JD Vance’s bid for U.S. Senate and has made its way to our nation’s highest court. In National Republican Senatorial Committee v. FEC, party lawyers argue that federal limits on coordinated spending between political parties and candidates are unnecessary because other regulations provide adequate protection.
- In 2015, Wisconsin eliminated both limits on individual contributions to political parties and restrictions on coordinated spending between parties and candidates.
- The 2023 Supreme Court race cost $51 million, shattering nationwide records for spending in any judicial election. The 2025 race doubled that — with total expenditures exceeding $100 million. In both races, the established pattern held. Extremely wealthy individuals made maximum contributions directly to the candidates and also funneled significantly larger sums to the political party supporting their favored candidate.
- This isn’t partisan—both parties exploit these loopholes. It’s about rushing headlong into a system where candidates no longer need broad voter support, as long as they have a handful of mega-donors writing massive checks to a political party that will funnel cash into the campaign.
- If the Court strikes down coordination limits, the next lawsuit will undoubtedly target party contribution limits themselves.
- The court should learn from Wisconsin’s cautionary tale and preserve these protections. Otherwise, Wisconsin’s nightmare becomes America’s reality: elections for sale to the highest bidder, and citizens’ voices drowned out by billionaires’ checkbooks.
